Christian Climate Scientist Sets the Record Straight

[_subgenius]

Are you stating that you are unable to discern any of Trump's positions as presented here?

No, I am saying that he jumps from one thought to the next with only tenuous connection to the question he was asked,

Ok, but this does not prove or disprove anything about climate change, this thread, or the OP.

... the arguments he alludes to are very poorly thought out, and his sentence structure and phrasing choices are exquisitely poor and reminiscent of dementia.

Dementia? there is that hyperbole of the hair-fire that has come to be about the only discernible DNC platform of 2018. But again, eloquence does not make a claim true or false.

It's bad arguments expressed poorly to a degree that even if he was a person of no importance whatsoever, I'd feel a mixture of pity and worry towards him.

Notwithstanding your own misplaced arrogance inasmuch as you aren't elected to anything, aren't newsworthy; and aren't "important"; again - expressed poorly does not prove or disprove the claim.

Add in that he actually has tremendous power and pity and worry doesn't seem sufficient.

Ah, the irony arrived sooner than expected - talk about "expressed poorly"...wut you be uh saying here?
(by your measure, we should pity you and dismiss whatever point(s) you were attempting to make).

There is a logical fallacy called: the fallacy fallacy, whereas just because a claim is poorly argued does not equal the claim itself being wrong. So, while the "raking the forest" is fuel for the snark fire du jour, the claim for poor forest management is still true....and just because foreign garbage washes up on our shores does not mean that one shouldn't be skeptical of the extent for which mankind influences the global climate (personally I influence local climate change with a thermostat timer, heat-pump, and air-conditioner).

First, let's try to trace the line of reasoning here, as "raking the forest" has virtually nothing to do with the conclusions of the climate report that he is attempting to justify his disagreement with.

Um, considering that climate change has been argued as a reason for the CA fires it is a fair rebuttal to claim that poor forest management in the cause.

It likely goes something like:
People are saying those wildfires are the result of global warming. The climate report says that global warming is happening, is causing bad things, and is going to cause really bad things in the future. But actually, the real cause of the wildfire problem is poor forest management. So, that shows you those global warming folks don't know what they're talking about.

Aww, you did understand Trump...don't you feel better now that you admitted it?

Is that it? It sure seems like it. What fallacy do you think would describe this reasoning Sub?

Oh this one is easy...you have just written a post that committed The Strawman Fallacy

[Guest]

Um, considering that climate change has been argued as a reason for the CA fires it is a fair rebuttal to claim that poor forest management in the cause.

Lol. Not unless increased shrub density in and of itself causes fires to start.

In the meantime, if increased management efforts are required then it follows that something is changing the norm. Perhaps climate change is contributory, considering the evidence ... which is more prevalent than the incidence of forest raking being used as an effective management strategy.

[_subgenius]

... means that attempting to justify a bad argument by claiming that invented bullshite somehow validates a claim is both disingenuous and fallacious in and of itself. ; )

a.k.a., most of the "science" for anthropogenic climate change.
(thanks for the shorthand, now whenever you or Res post some giant leap of faith i can just respond with "F3 chumps!")

[_canpakes]

... means that attempting to justify a bad argument by claiming that invented bullshite somehow validates a claim is both disingenuous and fallacious in and of itself. ; )

a.k.a., most of the "science" for anthropogenic climate change.
(thanks for the shorthand, now whenever you or Res post some giant leap of faith i can just respond with "F3 chumps!")

Sorry, but you just argued for it’s existence in a backhanded way in your previous post. Thanks for dismissing your own following contradictory argument before presenting it.

[_subgenius]

Um, considering that climate change has been argued as a reason for the CA fires it is a fair rebuttal to claim that poor forest management in the cause.

Lol. Not unless increased shrub density in and of itself causes fires to start.

The ignition is almost irrelevant in this context.

In the meantime, if increased management efforts are required then it follows that something is changing the norm.

"increased" ? perhaps...i think the more appropriate term would be "competent" management efforts.

Perhaps climate change is contributory, considering the evidence

perhaps yes...and i appreciate you leaving off the "man-made", since for that there really is no conclusive evidence.

... which is more prevalent than the incidence of forest raking being used as an effective management strategy.

I appreciate your snark, but whereas, as a general concept, "forest raking"=good environmental management it turns out that "forest raking" (at least according to evidence) is a better tactic against forest fires than ever was the Paris Agreement.

[_subgenius]

Sorry, but you just argued for it’s existence in a backhanded way in your previous post. Thanks for dismissing your own following contradictory argument before presenting it.

Yeah, go ahead and point me towards my arguing for "its" existence - thanks!

[_EAllusion]

Ok, but this does not prove or disprove anything about climate change, this thread, or the OP.

What it demonstrates is that Donald Trump struggles to reason and communicate at the level of an elementary school student when asked to justify his disagreement with a report on climate change forecasting and its impacts. Which was the point of sharing it. If Donald Trump also struggled to explain heliocentricity, this wouldn't prove it false - obviously - but it would demonstrate something about his capacity to understand and/or talk about heliocentricity. Climate change denialism is false for other reasons. That the president is a climate change denialist who reasons like your crazy uncle who huffs paint while watching Fox news just speaks to his character. The President is an ignorant buffoon is what you should take away from that interview, if you need it spelled out more clearly.

Dementia? there is that hyperbole of the hair-fire that has come to be about the only discernible DNC platform of 2018. But again, eloquence does not make a claim true or false.

Yes, his linguistic style mirrors what occurs in dementia. Don't worry. I'm not saying this means he has dementia. He could be a tremendous idiot in over his head. I'm not taking any position on that.

Um, considering that climate change has been argued as a reason for the CA fires it is a fair rebuttal to claim that poor forest management in the cause.

Feel free to point out where in the report the recent California wildfires were attributed to climate change.

Aww, you did understand Trump...don't you feel better now that you admitted it?

I described it as stream of consciousness, semi-coherent attempts at denialism. I was pretty clear I understood it for what it is from the get go Subs.

[_canpakes]

Sorry, but you just argued for it’s existence in a backhanded way in your previous post. Thanks for dismissing your own following contradictory argument before presenting it.

Yeah, go ahead and point me towards my arguing for "its" existence - thanks!

Hey, ‘autocorrect’ is awesome. Or, it’s awesome. : D

[_canpakes]

Don't worry. I'm not saying this means he has dementia. He could be a tremendous idiot in over his head. I'm not taking any position on that.

Unfortunately for all, these are likely the only two possibilities.

[_Chap]

Don't worry. I'm not saying this means he has dementia. He could be a tremendous idiot in over his head. I'm not taking any position on that.

Unfortunately for all, these are likely the only two possibilities.

The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately for the rest of us ... since we only have one planet ...